Professor finds that iconic Oswald photo was not faked (w/ Video)

Nov 05, 2009
The famous backyard photo of Lee Harvey Oswald.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Dartmouth Computer Scientist Hany Farid has new evidence regarding a photograph of accused John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Farid, a pioneer in the field of digital forensics, digitally analyzed an iconic image of Oswald pictured in a backyard setting holding a rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other.

Oswald and others claimed that the incriminating photo was a fake, noting the seemingly inconsistent lighting and shadows. After analyzing the photo with modern-day forensic tools, Farid says the photo almost certainly was not altered.

"If we had found evidence of photo tampering, then it would have suggested a broader plot to kill JFK," said Farid, who is also the director of the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at Dartmouth. "Those who believe that there was a broader conspiracy can no longer point to this photo as possible evidence."

Farid added that federal officials long ago said that this image had not been tampered with, but a surprising number of skeptics still assert that there was a .

The study will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal Perception.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

Farid and his team have developed a number of digital forensic tools used to determine whether digital photos have been manipulated, and his research is often used by law enforcement officials and in legal proceedings. The tools can measure statistical inconsistencies in the underlying image pixels, improbable lighting and shadow, physically impossible perspective distortion, and other artifacts introduced by photo manipulators. The play of light and shadow was fundamental in the Oswald photo analysis.

"The human brain, while remarkable in many aspects, also has its weaknesses," says Farid. "The visual system can be quite inept at making judgments regarding 3-D geometry, lighting, and shadows."

At a casual glance, the lighting and shadows in the Oswald photo appear to many to be incongruous with the outdoor lighting. To determine if this was the case, Farid constructed a 3-D model of Oswald's head and portions of the backyard scene, from which he was able to determine that a single light source, the sun, could explain all of the shadows in the photo.

"It is highly improbable that anyone could have created such a perfect forgery with the technology available in 1963," said Farid. With no evidence of tampering, he concluded that the incriminating photo was authentic.

"As our digital tools become more sophisticated, we increasingly have the ability to apply them to historic photos in an attempt to resolve some long-standing mysteries," said Farid.

Source: Dartmouth College

Explore further: Computer scientists can predict the price of Bitcoin

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

BlackBerry Storm 2 coming soon (w/ Video)

Oct 20, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- RIM are soon to release their updated BlackBerry, the Storm 2 smart phone, with a more streamlined design and touch-sensitive buttons instead of the hardware buttons of the first version.

New robot skier takes to the slopes (w/ Video)

Oct 23, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new robot skier has been invented that can be fitted with off-the-shelf skis. This is not the first skiing robot, since Japanese scientists have produced their own (see PhysOrg.com article here), but is bigger and heavie ...

Investigating Digital Images; What's real and what's phony?

Jul 01, 2004

''Seeing is no longer believing. Actually, what you see is largely irrelevant,'' says Dartmouth Professor Hany Farid. He is referring to the digital images that appear everywhere: in newspapers, on Web sites, in advertising, ...

Flying MAV Navigates Without GPS (w/ Video)

Nov 02, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- During the last several years, researchers have been building micro air vehicles (MAVs) that can autonomously fly through different environments by relying on GPS for navigation. Recently, ...

Two Robot Chefs Make Omelets

Dec 04, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- No "house of the future" is complete without a household robot to do the cooking and cleaning. Although today´s robots still have a ways to go before substituting for a real live-in maid, ...

Recommended for you

How to find a submarine

1 hour ago

Das Boot, The Hunt for Red October, The Bedford Incident, We Dive At Dawn: films based on submariners' experience reflect the tense and unusual nature of undersea warfare – where it is often not how well ...

Google offers peek into Bhutan with Street View launch

3 hours ago

Google provided a sneak peek into Bhutan Thursday by unveiling a Street View project for the remote Himalayan kingdom, featuring panoramic views of its majestic mountains, monasteries and crystal-clear rivers.

Nokia turnaround since handset unit sale continues

5 hours ago

Nokia appears to have turned around its fortunes after the sale of its ailing cellphone unit to Microsoft, reporting a third-quarter net profit of 747 million euros ($950 million), from a loss of 91 million euros a year earlier. ...

User comments : 72

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

weirmeir
Nov 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PieRSquare
3 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2009
Interesting to know, unfortunately the skeptics can always resort to accusing those who investigate of being "in on it" when they don't say things that confirm the conspiracy theories. Similar objections based on lighting in the moon landing pictures have been made by the "we didn't really land on the moon" crowd. I would like to see Farld do an analysis of those.
codesuidae
1 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2009
It seems that what this demonstrates is that either the photo is not a fake or that whomever faked it was well-enough informed about the conditions at the time the image of the head was taken to be able to reproduce similar conditions for the taking of the photo of the body. This does not seem all that far-fetched if both photos were taken with the intention of producing a composite, which, if you're into deep conspiracies, isn't itself particularly far-fetched. It would not be difficult to construct a scenario in which both photos were taken with the same camera, on the same roll of film on subsequent days and then developed at the same time.
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 05, 2009
if you're into deep conspiracies, isn't itself particularly far-fetched.


Nothing is to deep for conspiracy fans.

Witness the claims of an undistorted bullet. Which is VERY distorted in fact. Lead oozed out of the bottom of it and you have show in EXACTLY the right position for it to look undistorted and you have to crop out the bottom where the lead oozes.

Ethelred
Sancho
1 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2009
My eyes are low-tech. To them, it appears the sun is positioned to Oswald's left. So what is casting the shadow on the fence?

Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 06, 2009
There appears to be a wood frame that goes overhead. You can see the support behind Oswald over his shoulder and another in front of him to the left.

Ethelred
Muchtobedesired
1 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2009
Hany; it was a reasonable attempt. Perhaps impressing some people, wowed by your modern computer technology. Your science background, title, and place of employment, might also impress some to believe. But your apparent conclusion, is way too incomplete...it leaves much to be desired. People looking in for the first time, may say; wow, Hany's got it! Hany's finally putting this "conspiracy" to rest...well, I don't believe it's going to be that easy professor. There is too much missing from your science explanation w/video. Even with the Apple 3D graphics and your theories on shadows...it's not really expected to be that simple, is it? Are we really expected to drop everything else, and accept Hany's quick and simple explanation? Compare this information to the good professor's. Copy this title into a Google search: Fake: the Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey Oswald. Provided by Christopher-Peter: Maingot; without prejudice, malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity.
KBK
not rated yet Nov 06, 2009
And the parts that most don't know about:

1:Clay Shaw's lawyer repped high level actual 'Nazi' officers and such that where brought into the US black ops system via the CIA program (previously the OSS) called 'project paperclip', approx. 3-5000 Nazi scientists came into the US via that program. All this - for Germany's black ops programs.

2:Kennedy promised to "Break the CIA into 100 pieces".

3:Kennedy had made a recent speech (just before assassination) to the Press club, warning about the infiltration of 'secret societies'. Search for it on youtube - it's there.

4:One of the ~LEADING~ members of the Warren commission was actually in Hitler's box for the 1936 Olympics!!!! Seriously-you can't make this crap up.

5: Prescott Bush (Bush senior's father), ran a banking consortium (of the FED banks) called the 'Union Banking Corp', and THEY financed the Nazis!!! He was going to be tried for treason - when the bankers stopped it. His son goes on to head the CIA and be a president.
Muchtobedesired
not rated yet Nov 06, 2009
John D. Rockefeller’s [STANDARD OIL]...developed and financed Germany's synthetic fuel program in partnership with the German chemical giant, I.G. Farben.

Read more conspiracies...
http://www.scribd...isupport

For all who have never viewed the following documentary...please do...you too professor.

The Jim Garrison Story - Part 1
http://www.youtub...Q4wy_ShE

Information compiled and provided by: Christopher-Peter: Maingot; without prejudice, malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity.
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 06, 2009
Air is drier than water.

Life is not dead.

Diamonds were sold to Germany in WWII.

Orange means hot.

Orson Wells got fat.

Do any of the above have any less to do with Oswald pulling the trigger than those claims.

Oswald shot Kennedy. The evidence is strong. The evidence against it consists of distortions and ignorance.

This does not mean that Oswald acted on his own. However there is no real evidence that he didn't.

Ethelred
Muchtobedesired
not rated yet Nov 06, 2009
Sometimes, air can be, as wet as water...depends on temperature, and relative humidity (dew point).

If you are a believer...life is, after death...it is when you truly begin to live.

Diamonds, and gold, were stolen by the Nazis.

The true meaning of hot, is: White.

It seemed to me....Orson Wells was always fat.

None of the above had anything to do with Oswald pulling a trigger.

Oswald was shot by Ruby...there is strong evidence of that...the evidence against Oswald, is distorted, and consist of ignorance.

Oswald did not act on his own...we have since discovered that there were at least two, or perhaps three, more, just like him. So, in essence...no real evidence that he was acting on his own.

PS
Don't be surprised by the inability to control or maintain loyalty, via these comments. Especially given the unorthodox style of expressing a personal perspective on wisdom.

Christopher-Peter: Maingot; without prejudice, malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity.

Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 06, 2009
None of the above had anything to do with Oswald pulling a trigger
And the same for stuff I was responding to.
Diamonds, and gold, were stolen by the Nazis
True but diamonds were SOLD to the Nazis. By DeBeers through a cutout.
If you are a believer...life is, after death...it is when you truly begin to live
Belief does not make things true.

The true meaning of hot is not white as it is beyond human vision.
Oswald was shot by Ruby
I know. I saw it. Live on TV.
the evidence against Oswald, is distorted, and consist of ignorance
Sure, just like the allegedly undistorted bullet is evidence for him. Or maybe that SURE should be some other word.
Oswald did not act on his own...we have since discovered that there were at least two, or perhaps three, more, just like him
No. You BELIEVE that. Much like you believe in an afterlife. This one MIGHT be true. But he still pulled the trigger.
PS
Would like me to make equally irrelevant comments again?

Ethelred
Metalious
not rated yet Nov 07, 2009
It is shocking the degree to which people here, in a physics forum, utterly lack the ability to think critically or objectively.

This photo, whether it is altered or not, says absolutely nothing about who killed John Kennedy, how many people were involved, or whether it was a conspiracy or not. It is completely irrelevant.

But for the record, Mr Harid's presentation is far from conclusive.

Hany Farid: "If this was a fake, it would have been almost unimaginable how they could have done it in 1963."

Yes professor! Back in 1963, no one would have known to take the staged photo in the same location at the same time of day during the same general time of year. You see, 1963 people could barely feed themselves they were so primitive. I'm sorry, but mockery is all tghis statement deserves.

Faked photos and magic bullets; all just distractions. The proof of conspiracy in the death of Kennedy has been available from the very beginning. Witnesses.



Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 07, 2009
Witnesses.


The worst source of evidence. People's memory are friable and subject to change at the least suggestion. Especially people that think they have a good memory.

Do you have any TRAINED witnesses. Not just people that claim training but people that actually have it? Did they take notes at the time?

Yes, my memory sucks as well. So occasionally I check up on it by doing searches before I post.

Ethelred
IronBear
not rated yet Nov 07, 2009
Sorry, but as one who does lots of 3d modeling, either your model is way off, your light source is flawed or your theory is wrong. The shadows on the model face are not even close to the photo. This is uselsess as any kind of 'proof'. Try again perhaps.
Metalious
not rated yet Nov 07, 2009


The worst source of evidence. People's memory are friable and subject to change at the least suggestion. Especially people that think they have a good memory.

Ethelred


Nice try. In fact, the odds of numerous witnesses all saying they witnessed the same thing exponentially increased the liklihood that their stated observations are accurate.

The breakdown of the witnesses is a bit complex. The ones farthest from the grass embankment were least like to stick to their guns on at least some of the shots having originated there. The ones near the knoll were adamant. Additionally, several smelled gunpowder.

To have someone 45 years later try to debunk people who were actually there is comical. This isn't subtle details we're talking about. This is the source of loud explosions, followed by the presence of smoke and the smell of gunpowder. Numerous people, all in the best position to know, observed precisely the same thing. You have no reason or right to doubt their word.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2009
In fact, the odds of numerous witnesses all saying they witnessed the same thing exponentially increased the liklihood that their stated observations are accurate.
True IF they took notes or were interviewed by non-biased sources shortly after the event.So can you point to any such thing?
The ones farthest from the grass embankment were least like to stick to their guns on at least some of the shots having originated there.
Which doesn't help you since Kennedy was shot from behind and not from the Grassy Knoll. Indeed you couldn't have shot him from there. Its too low and there was a windshield in the way.
To have someone 45 years later try to debunk people who were actually there is comical.
To invent witnesses days, years and even decades after the event is what is comical. Especially when what they claim is shown false by the Zapruder film.
You have no reason or right to doubt their word.


You mean I should deny all the physical evidence.

Ethelred
Metalious
1 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2009
Invent witnesses? Now you're just making things up. Have fun with that.
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 08, 2009
I still don't see a single witness from you. Not a one.

Please post a link to the alleged witnesses. I would like to see a count for instance. Just how many claim to have been there.

Yes witnesses do get invented. People claim to see things in places when they weren't within a hundred miles of it. Some people are that desperate to feel important.

I printed photos for Don Lasseter when he was ghosting a book by someone claiming to be involved in a conspiracy. I don't think that Don believed him much more than I did but that is guess since he didn't say.

http://www.allboo...nce.html

http://www.amazon...;sr=8-13

Bet that Amazon link get destroyed.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 08, 2009
It looks like he should be falling over. It looks like the photo was made to be endlessly controversial like so much with this event. To me the most damning evidence is the acoustic analysis of the open mike:
http://www.jfk-on...s02.html
-that after all the official attention and conclusions, up pops something which should have been discovered much earlier and which proves a 2nd shooter. It destroys all the Warren commission work but no one is demanding the conclusions be changed.

To my thinking John and his brother were killed because they genuinely wanted to end communism in Cuba. Communist martial law and sanction-related poverty are the only things which have kept that traditional catholic culture from collapsing due to overpop. That and the abortions which have taken place since 1968:
http://www.johnst...uba.html
-which couldn't have occured without communism.
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 08, 2009
Cuba has served a valuable function as an enemy at the gate. It has been a constant reminder of who and what the enemy is. The missile crisis was staged at just the right time to justify our escalation in Vietnam. Both sides acted together to stabilize the world. US/USSR - 2 sides, 1 coin. Good cop/bad cop. The kennedys may just have Bern appalled by this notion, and died as a result.
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 08, 2009
To my thinking John and his brother were killed because they genuinely wanted to end communism in Cuba
Lets see. One was shot by an American Communist and the other by a Moslem. Yes that make so sense Otto that it undermines anything you have ever said.
It looks like the photo was made to be endlessly controversial like so much with this event.
Well Oswald was an idiot after all. He was proud of being a Communist. He wanted controversy. There is nothing fake in the photo.
e: "The probability of obtaining just one match by chance in any of 180 independent tries is equal to 5.3 � 10-2, or about 5%. Therefore, the probability that they obtained their match because the two matched patterns were due to the same source (gunfire from the knoll) is about 95%."
Gosh that is so perfectly proved.

With a 50% chance of a false positive EVEN IF the mic wasn't where they ASSUMED it was that isn't even close to evidence. They don't even know if the mic was at Deally Plaza

Ethered
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 08, 2009
Metalious:

Since your response to a request for evidence was to give me a one I must assume that you don't have any actual evidence that can stand scrutiny of any kind.

Thank you for your support in this matter. Your surrender was clear if not explicit.

Ethelred
Muchtobedesired
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2009
[Ethelred-Kennedy shot from behind, not from Grassy Knoll]

You're either bored, or derive pleasure from being antagonistic.

Do you also think he was shot from the "book depository," around the tree that was in front of the window?

Coincidentally; there's always someone just like you at every blog, or forum, that I've ever come across. But your efforts are counter-productive. It only motivates others to try harder to get more information out. And, it benefits those who are more receptive. There is not much that can be done, for those who's head's are buried too deeply.

F.Y.I., and for anyone who may not have viewed these video presentations...you need to do so.

JFK
http://www.youtub...dg7xjAMk

JFK Conspiracy
http://video.goog...9429062#

The Many Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald
http://video.goog...2768943#

Christopher-Peter: Maingot; without prejudice, malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2009
Lets see. One was shot by an American Communist and the other by a Moslem. Yes that make so sense Otto that it undermines anything you have ever said.
Otto says what makes him happy so, no. This is America! The CIA and the mafia are equal opportunity employers. Oswald was apparently very skilled at playing roles. Sirhan sirhans description of his state of mind that day leads some to think he may have been an unwitting victim of MKUltra mind control. The truth is in there... somewhere...
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2009
4 shots = 2 shooters. That opens everything up to scrutiny. Was the Warren commission or parts thereof covering up and suppressing? Why did Arlen spectre go democrat? Why was John jr. killed? Chappaquidick- WTF? Were these assassinations just a monumental diversion to fill up tv screens and student minds while vietnam got rolling and nuke plants were being built? Seriously, 2 shooters from wherever they stood changes everything. How can it not be conspiracy from the top down?
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 08, 2009
You're either bored, or derive pleasure from being antagonistic.
And that means something because of what evidence?The Zapruder film AND the autopsy photos make it clear that Kennedy was shot from behind.
Do you also think he was shot from the "book depository," around the tree that was in front of the window?

From yes but not through as the tree does not block the shots that hit Kennedy. Again the Zapruder film and the layout of the land makes that quite clear.
Coincidentally; there's always someone just like you at every blog, or forum, that I've ever come across.
That is because there is someone that can think at every forum. Well almost every forum. There are one topic posters like you at most forums as well. These are your first posts here.
It only motivates others to try harder to get more information out.
How about posting real information then. Instead of the usual obfuscations. You didn't even notice two of the links contradict each other.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2009
The first one attempts to obfuscate the Single Bullet theory. It has to pretend that the Zapruder film has been faked. After decades of conspiracy fans claiming it was evidence against the "Magic Bullet" now they have claim that the film is ALSO a fake. The technical term for this is Bullshit.

In one stupefying remark he actually calls Oliver Stone is a researcher. A man that had to fake the gunsmoke for his film.

He makes the ridiculous claim that the car STOPPED for the shooter and the Secret Service was involved.

And you believe this rot.

The second starts with Oliver Stone. Gosh such a source. He wanted to show smoke at the Grassy Knoll and they had to use special effects because modern rifles don't produce smoke. Haven't for rather a long time.

Interesting that you posted this since it DOESN'T claim the Zapruder film was faked. Indeed it depends on it.

At least one of the two is a crock they cannot both be true. Looks like both are crap from the actual evidence.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 08, 2009
Shots may have missed their mark but 4 shots, 2 shooters is a revelation. Also smokeless powder is not entirely smokeless. Smoke and flash can still give away a shooters position.
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 08, 2009
He makes the ridiculous claim that the car STOPPED for the shooter and the Secret Service was involved.
Why is that ridiculous? First off it's possible so it can't be dismissed. Franz Ferdinand- from the description of events the day he died it is easy to conclude that his driver went looking for the assassins. The attempt on mubaraks life is equally suspicious- assassins failed to block his exit. The result was an excuse for a thorough general purge of radicals. Bin laden left, peace reigns to this day.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2009
The third is disguised to look like a news report. Complete with bad news show music. I guess it wants to look authentic. I love the touch of the two clocks in the background.

There is guy claiming the there are no shadows on the newspaper in Oswald's photo. This while they show the photo. With shadows from Oswald's fingers. He makes a ridiculous claim about the proportions of the photos. They match my 5'11" pretty well. So why does he claim the guy is under 5 foot in the photo.

GIGO. If you use self contradictory crap you can only be right by accident.

And now for something completely different. Actual evidence and rational thinking.

Warning - the photos are actual autopsy photos. Black and white but still nasty.
http://www.jfklan...dex.html

The best for real evidence. As opposed to obfuscation.
http://mcadams.po...home.htm

Plus a Wiki site for a possibly neutral approach.
http://en.wikiped..._autopsy

Ethelred
Muchtobedesired
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2009
Jim Garrison meets Mister X Part One
http://www.youtub...=related

"Listen to this incredible audio recording of a speech made by JFK before the American Newspaper Publishers Association where he warns the press about the secret societies that are the real power in global affairs."

President John F Kennedy Secret Society Speech
http://www.youtub...=related

JFK and 9/11 - Insights Gained From Studying Both
http://video.goog...p;hl=en#

Information compiled and provided by: Christopher-Peter: Maingot; without prejudice, malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity.
Muchtobedesired
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2009
Who is John McAdams?
http://www.jfkmur...dams.htm

SOME COMMENTS ON JOHN MCADAMS’ KENNEDY ASSASSINATION HOME PAGE
http://hidhist.wo...me-page/

[A Wiki site for a possibly neutral approach]

Perhaps that’s the problem…can’t find the right gear…stuck in neutral???

Information compiled and provided by: Christopher-Peter: Maingot; without prejudice, malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity.
Muchtobedesired
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2009
Bill Hicks on the JFK Assassination
http://video.goog...p;hl=en#
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 08, 2009
4 shots = 2 shooters. That opens everything up to scrutiny
Big if. Three shots are enough to match the evidence.
Why was John jr. killed?
He flew under poor conditions, evolution in action.
Chappaquidick- WTF?
You do know that no one has claimed that the CIA or the Mafia or Smersh was involved in that don't you?
How can it not be conspiracy from the top down?
By Oswald doing it himself which fits the evidence and was quite possible. He MAY have had help but I have to consider the source of the claims that he did.
Why is that ridiculous?
You mean besides there is no evidence and no conspiracy fan claimed it happened till after Posner and Bugliosi wrote their books. Before that they insisted that the Zapruder film supported them. Not till after that did they claim it was faked.
Smoke and flash can still give away a shooters position.
Indeed but but it was daylight so flash is out and rifles really don't smoke.

Ethelred
Muchtobedesired
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2009
John McAdams…The best for real obfuscation, as opposed to other evidence.
http://educationf...pic=1637

WHO KILLED JFK?
http://whokilledjfk.net/

Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away.
Elvis Presley – 1935-1977

Information compiled and provided by: Christopher-Peter: Maingot; without prejudice, malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity.
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 09, 2009
q]Jim Garrison meets Mister X Part One Jim Garrison lost his case. A jury case.

You are aware that Stone engaged in SERIOUS fictionalizing aren't you.

Second link

Nice but it doesn't actually pertain to his assassination. Kennedy is talking about the Soviet Union.

Third link. That is kind of long.

Well he starts right off acting as if it was odd that they figured out who did so fast. And he doesn't seem to understand that there was no normal investigation because for the simple reason that the people were DEAD. It is hard to prosecute dead people. Then again perhaps he does understand but thinks it is part of a plot.

Oh goody now he pretends they had to conspire to know that Sirhan was the assassin. I mean they only had the GUN IN HIS HAND as he tried to keep shooting. I am going to skip through this stuff after something that silly.

This is mostly about 9/11 to an audience of the converted.

Ethelred
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 09, 2009
His remarks about the hijackings are strange. He doesn't seem to understand that airlines keep records AND they are computer accessible. He does have interesting claims about the history of the people involved in 9/11 or rather people that were involved with people that were involved.

But nothing to show that Oswald didn't pull a trigger three times from the Book Depository.
SOME COMMENTS ON JOHN MCADAMS’ KENNEDY ASSASSINATION HOME PAGE
Comments by a conspiracy fan about McAdam but not much about his site. Looks a bit like the result of a Usenet Flamewar to me. So he may be an unpleasant person. The site still has real evidence. Which is why I linked to it. I hadn't looked at since around 2001 till today. Still looks reliable. But I also linked to the Wiki just in case.

So here is some Bugliosi.
http://investigat...jfk.html
Interview with Bugliosi
http://hnn.us/art...490.html
About not by
http://vincent-bu...pot.com/

Ethelred
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 09, 2009
Perhaps that’s the problem…can’t find the right gear…stuck in neutral???
No. Just stuck on using the actual evidence and noticing obfuscation when I see it. Notice how the Zapruder film has gone from being used to support a conspiracy to being claimed as forgery. That is a change since I last discussed this on the net. A big change.
Bill Hicks on the JFK Assassination
I like Bill's work, I have a lot of bootlegs of his shows. But I don't use him as a source for information about reality. Bill was chemically enhanced. That sort of thing tends to produce a bit more paranoia than is normal.

When someone makes remarks that people that think Oswald shot Kennedy are somehow mentally deficient I remind myself that they may only be idiots on this one thing. Except for Stone. Alexander SUCKED.

Now if James Cameron starts making pro conspiracy documentaries I might rethink this. Like I did in 2001 and discovered that Oswald did pull the trigger. Three times.

Ethelred
Muchtobedesired
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2009
[noticing obfuscation]?

Obfuscation, obfuscation...bla, bla, bla.

Oswald "pulled the trigger three times," (expert witness) because the air in Dallas was drier than water, which made it as hot as oranges trucked up from Florida, contaminated with hydrofluorosilicic acid, for experimentation.

Oswald was quite depressed because Orson was getting fat, so he purchased a cheap 36-40 inch mail order Italian rifle, posed for pictures with it, and the communist manifesto...he wanted to get caught, so he could become famous. He left this trail that all the experts in evidence analysis could later continue to rely on.

Nothing is to deep for those who bath in the mainstream....Kennedy was talking about the "N.W.O. PATRIOTS".

What about the iconic Oswald photo (above)...being fake or real...remember the posted topic?

I hope you're having a good laugh professor.

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so - Mark Twain (1835-1910)
Muchtobedesired
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2009
The JFK Assassination: Defending the Gangster State
By: Michael Parenti

To know the truth about the assassination of John Kennedy is to call into question the state security system and the entire politico-economic order it protects. This is why for over thirty years the corporate-owned press and numerous political leaders have suppressed or attacked the many revelations about the murder unearthed by independent investigators like Mark Lane, Peter Dale Scott, Carl Oglesby, Harold Weisberg, Anthony Summers, Philip Melanson, Jim Garrison, Cyril Wecht, Jim Marrs, Gaeton Fonzi, Sylvia Meagher, Michael Canfield, James DiEugenio, and many others.
http://www.michae...ion.html

Michael Parenti - The JFK Assassination and the Gangster Nature of the State Part 1
http://www.youtub...iP1UGSro

Information compiled and provided by: Christopher-Peter: Maingot; without prejudice, malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity.
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 09, 2009
@Ethelred
http://mcadams.po...u/odell/
Is this the study you cited to discredit my assertion of the 2 shooter acoustic evidence? No, so I discredited myself. Although I see wiggle room in this report. He claims speech patterns can resemble gunshots but so can gunshots. The recorder timelines are very complex and even if extra shots were not hits they could have been attempts From anywhere a few seconds after the fact, as the car began to speed off.
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 09, 2009
Also a YouTube video of a similar rifle using corrosive powder. Notice smoke/vapor out the business end.
http://www.youtub...be_gdata
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2009
Nice but it doesn't actually pertain to his assassination. Kennedy is talking about the Soviet Union.
Seems like he's using the USSR as a thinly veiled metaphor. He is asking the press for help in being forthcoming here in the land of 1st amendment. But he is in vain- 'press' was first used as Egyptian monuments. Owned and operated by Managers, Moderators. Because it can be. So if it's not, then somebody else (A political citizen Kane?) would be using it for their own purposes, which would be unacceptable.
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
Skipping past nonsense due to space limitations.
q]Nothing is to deep for those who bath in the mainstream....Kennedy was talking about the "N.W.O. PATRIOTS He was talking about the Soviet Union. If you insist on INVENTING a hidden meaning it is no wonder you see so many things that simply aren't there.
What about the iconic Oswald photo (above)...being fake or real...remember the posted topic?
Yes. I have mentioned it several times. Including in regards to one of the videos you posted a link to. The one that claimed that there were shadows from Oswald's fingers. While they showed his fingers and the shadows thereof.

The article is correct the photo isn't faked.
I hope you're having a good laugh professor.
Only at the contradictions in your posts. I am not claiming to be a professor.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so - Mark Twain (1835-1910)
I agree. You should think on it.

Ethelred
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
The JFK Assassination: Defending the Gangster State
Is there anything but similar emotion fueled noise there?

You know anything that resembles reliable evidence.
JFK is the only movie I know that continues to be attacked years after its run.
He doesn't know many movies.

He sure is into paranoid connections, innuendo, seeing things that are mere speculation, then building more speculation on top of the previous dubious speculation.

A Youtube post to support a bad film that supports his delusions. A socialist trying to support another socialist. Both with a fantasy vision of the US.

A monopoly on force and violence? In country with 10s of millions of armed citizens.

He sure does rant a lot. Can't make a reasoned argument to save his life.

What he doesn't do is give any evidence that Oswald didn't pull the trigger.

How about posting EVIDENCE.

You know. Actual facts.

Ethelred
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
Is this the study you cited to discredit my assertion of the 2 shooter acoustic evidence?


No.

I used this.
http://www.jfk-on...s02.html

Which if it seems familiar it is because it is the link you posted to show acoustic evidence. I didn't use anything else. Just YOUR source.

From Paragraph 2
Because the recorders were sound-activated, they could have stopped frequently for varying amounts of time, except that the Channel I recorder ran continuously for 5.5 minutes when a transmitter, presumably on a police motorcycle, became stuck in the transmit mode

Also P2
Because of the severe noise and distortion on the recording, the BRSW team could neither confirm that this segment contained gunshot sounds, nor eliminate the possibility that they were present, by simple listening or by examining the waveforms of sounds on the tape.

Unknown source, unknown position of source, unknown sound that MIGHT be gunshot sounds. Missing sounds that should be there.

More

Ethelred
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
Continued

Just past the halfway point:
One of these four, the third, was judged to have been fired from the grassy knoll, BRSW stated the probability that this set of impulses represents a shot from the grassy knoll is 50%.

Only 50% ASSUMING that it was a gunshot in the first place. Could just as easily be car doors. Or noise as the noise was that bad.

That is a lot of spitwadding from a poor quality recording from an unknown source that could have been pretty much anywhere in the city.

And it didn't move during the recording so just which officer wasn't on his bike at that time and where would he have been. Questions no one even bothered to check from what I could see. No sounds of crowd noise, no screaming or shouting or running or jumping or pretty much anything that should be there if there was a crowd around as there was at Deally Plaza.

So while interesting it simply isn't useful.

Ethelred
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
Also a YouTube video of a similar rifle using corrosive powder.
Similar but heavier. 182.7 grain vs. 160 grain.

The first and third shots have more smoke than the second. The second has pretty much none. Even the first shot doesn't have anything that was hanging in air after.

Yes there is a little smoke. I don't think it would be noticed unless you were looking at the gun as it went off. Nothing to see if you look because you heard a shot. And few thought they heard a shot from the Grassy Knoll. Most that thought they could place a direction heard it from behind Kennedy not in front.

If shot from the front where did the bullet go. The one in Kennedy's neck would have HAD to damage the car. The one that hit his head would have hit, oh who was next to him, his wife. Yes she would have been hit if not with the bullet itself then with her husbands brains.

Try this link for someone that had a rational change of mind.
http://mcadams.po...buff.htm

Ethelred
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
Seems like he's using the USSR as a thinly veiled metaphor.
Seemed to me that he was trying to make it clear that he did not intend to censor the news. Then he talked about the people that do censor the news. The Soviets. Anyone hearing New World Order in this CLEAR speech for Freedom of the Press and against the Soviets has way spent way too much time fearing things they know little about.

And no knowledge of history. At all.

John F. Kennedy made that speech April 27, 1961 - 10 days after the start of the Bay Of Pigs.

http://en.wikiped...Invasion

I gather that neither of you was alive then. That was a few days before my tenth birthday. I remember some of this stuff.

Ethelred
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
That is a lot of spitwadding
That 2nd link appears to be the definitive study which both discredits and reinforces what earlier studies presented. Still room to wiggle. From a site whose link you had posted earlier.
if shot from the front where did the bullet go?
It didn't need to connect to be evidence of a 2nd shooter.
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
Seemed to me that he was trying to make it clear that he did not intend to censor the news
Naw, he starts out by mentioning 'secret societies' and goes on to say that there are those in this country who would hide facts and mistakes from the American people. If you want I'll quote it later. He then goes on to mention the USSR as an example of where censorship can lead. He's talking about something that already exists here in the US and he's pledging to fight it and he's asking for help. 
Working hypothesis: in office for only 3 weeks, he is naive and enthused about the Cuban invasion, only to realize afterward that it was meant to fail and to discredit him, displaying who is really in charge. Furious, he delivers a veiled threat a few weeks later to entrenched conspirator organizations in this speech.  
Muchtobedesired
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2009
Governments constantly choose between telling lies, and fighting wars, with the end result always being the same. One will always lead to the other.
Thomas Jefferson.

He, who joyfully marches in rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the spinal cord would suffice.
Albert Einstein.

The Central Intelligence Agency, owns everyone of any significance, in the major media.
William Colby – 1920-1996 - Former CIA Director – Suspicious Death.

They gave you photos of Oswald showing he was a raving RED with a gun. For 9/11, they gave you the hijackers passport, laying in the rubble of the WTC..."maybe the smartest thing to do is...is pull it!"
http://www.youtub...dAJQV100

If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
Albert Einstein.

Information compiled and provided by: Christopher-Peter: Maingot; without prejudice, malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity.
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
It didn't need to connect to be evidence of a 2nd shooter.


I am only saying for certain that Oswald killed Kennedy.

There may have been a conspiracy but I see no compelling evidence to support that. I see people trying to manufacture one out of motive.

I really don't like the religious nutcases that are in charge of Iran. If one of them is assassinated and someone figures out a way that I might have managed to have been there with a weapon does that prove that I did it?

No.

Neither does showing that the Mafia didn't like Kennedy prove that they did it simply because they have means(guns)Motive(he was a pain)and opportunity(someone member might possibly have managed to drive by at the time) or have talked to Oswald once or maybe to someone that might have talked to Oswald.

That is the level of this crap. Or worse when they refuse to consider what their claims would HAVE to have done. Like a bullet from the front of Kennedy would have to something behind him.

Ethelred
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
Naw, he starts out by mentioning 'secret societies'
Yes. He says the US never tolerated them.
and goes on to say that there are those in this country who would hide facts and mistakes from the American people
In the context of the Bay of Pigs. The fact that we supported the fiasco is what he was talking about. The fact that HE DID NOT hide the mistakes.
If you want I'll quote it later.
I have listened to it twice now. Go ahead make my BAY.
He then goes on to mention the USSR as an example of where censorship can lead.
No. Not an example. The opposite of US admitting we screwed up.
He's talking about something that already exists here in the US
Again no. He is saying he WON'T cover up the Bay of Pigs.
he's asking for help
In dealing with the Soviets.
in office for only 3 weeks, he is naive and enthused about the Cuban invasion
More of a fact.

More

Ethelred
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
Continued
only to realize afterward that it was meant to fail and to discredit him
No. He simply realized that he goofed.
displaying who is really in charge
Yes. Him. The buck stopped there.
Furious, he delivers a veiled threat a few weeks later to entrenched conspirator organizations in this speech.
Embarrassed by his screw up he promises not cover up them up.

Mine fits the time and the man. Your is a paranoid fantasy that might fit former Vice President Mad Dog but not John Kennedy.

Ethelred
Muchtobedesired
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; we are a people opposed to secret societies, and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago, the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts, far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. There is a very grave danger, that an announced need for increased security, will be seized upon by those, anxious to expand its meaning, to the very limits of official censorship and, concealment – JFK - April 27, 1961

He was alluding to the FACTS; the CIA, covertly, had already positioned "OPS" on Cuba’s soil, and he, JFK, was not with the plan to invade Cuba. He basically screwed up, yes, the whole idea for "them." To be able to continue with; the liquor, gambling, drugs, prostitution and, just plain old exploitation, which; “they” had going for them in Cuba.

Information compiled and provided by: Christopher-Peter: Maingot; without prejudice, malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity.
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
Governments constantly choose between telling lies, and fighting wars, with the end result always being the same. One will always lead to the other. T Jeff
I like that. So if all of war is deception (sun tsu) and peace is always, sooner or later, followed by war, then all all of peace is deception. T Jeff ought to know- this country was founded by a Heirarchical secret society- freemasonry. I wouldn't say paranoid Ethelred, I find comfort as I've said in the idea that things are not left to chance in this world. "He wasn't a brutal man he just did brutal things." citizen Kane.
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
@muchtobedesired
JFK, was not with the plan to invade Cuba
Are you saying jfk was against the invasion, or he wasn't in on the planning and prep for it? In office for a few months he may have been out of the loop. But if he was against it and it failed he shouldve been happy. How did he screw up?
Muchtobedesired
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
I believe JFK didn’t care for the mafia involvement in the invasion, and much of the planning was already in place.

He obviously could not show joyous reactions over its failure...he was attempting to fight another war, at home.

The “plan” for Cuba was a complex one; involving some rather sinister operatives, that one could not be associated with, especially being President, and son of Joe.

This plan was on the board before JFK’s occupation of the oval office, and involved American associations with Anti-Castro Cubans; basically Cuban mafia with ties to like business in the U.S.

JFK found himself between a rock; he would have to go along with the CIA Pigs Plan, while his brother Robert, at the same time, was putting some serious squeeze on the organized crime.

Rumour had it that JFK’s pappy was involved with black/contraband markets (mafia) and, he was aided by mafia for Jack’s election to office.

continued...
Muchtobedesired
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
I believe Jack had several changes of heart, from the pressures, and from the traditions. Robert, his brother, played a big part in that, with his inspiration.

No doubt…its a can of worms…or government lies?

The perfect bureaucrat and politician, is the person who makes no decisions and escapes all responsibility - Brooks Atkinson.

When the largest industry in the world is no longer War, I will accept Darwin's theory of Evolution - Dale S. Mugford.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves - Abraham Lincoln.

Information compiled and provided by: Christopher-Peter: Maingot; without prejudice, malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity.

Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 11, 2009
Again with the irrelevant quotes. Are you that hard up for evidence?
William Colby – 1920-1996 - Former CIA Director – Suspicious Death.
But I will comment on this one. Despite the usual irrelevance. But it is such a straight line I can't resist.

He died of a brain tumor and you think what he says has more meaning than both the tumor and he were malignant?
They gave you photos of Oswald showing he was a raving RED with a gun.
Well he took them. And what does have to with him actually pulling the trigger? Nothing again.
For 9/11,
Has nothing to do with Oswald. It sure does produce a lot of paranoia though.

Yet Another Irrelevant Quote. YAIQ in future.

Did you get away with all those irrelevancies on the other sites you went to?
without prejudice, malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity.


Or any meaning this time around.

Actual evidence is what you need. Not vague motives at best and lots of quotes that have nothing to do with the facts.

Ethelred
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 11, 2009
He was alluding to the FACTS
Yes that he screwed the pooch.
he CIA, covertly, had already positioned "OPS" on Cuba’s soil
Of course. That was the job of the CIA.
JFK, was not with the plan to invade Cuba.
He agreed to go on with it. It was developed under Eisenhower, an experienced general whereas Kennedy drove a boat.
He basically screwed up, yes, the whole idea for "them."
No. The CIA overestimated the willingness of the general Cuban population to overthrow the Communist government. Also the plan clearly leaked. Which even the most idiotic member of the CIA wouldn't have blamed on the President.
“they” had going for them in Cuba.
I assume you are referring to the Mafia. The Mafia would have blamed the CIA for its own mistakes.

Assuming THEY never make mistakes and carry out impossibly complicated plots AND also assume that they are too bloody stupid to figure out that the CIA was responsible for the screw up is just a tad weird.

Ethelred
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 11, 2009
T Jeff ought to know- this country was founded by a Heirarchical secret society- freemasonry.


Sorry but no. Freemasons were involved of course but they did not found the country.

I wonder how many of the Colonial Freemasons were Loyalists?

I wouldn't say paranoid Ethelred, I find comfort as I've said in the idea that things are not left to chance


Things often happen by chance. It was chance that got Oswald the job in the Book Depository. It was chance that a failed experiment led to Nylon. It was chance that saved Hitler when the assassin's bomb went off.

It was mostly chance the Benedict Arnold was at Saratoga to save the day for the American Revolution.

Chance happens. Sometimes it hits the fan and sometimes it hits the Shan instead.

Ethelred
Muchtobedesired
not rated yet Nov 11, 2009
[Hard up for evidence] – No; I can get what I need from you, right?

You sure seem to be living up to your name. My concern is; that its not an intentional thing with you, too?

Oh; can you please provide me (us) with some factual evidence, stating William Colby died from a malignant brain tumor?

[He took the pictures] – No he did not, and his wife had problems remembering that.
[actual trigger pulling] – I must have missed that comment where you provided all the factual evidence that he did, pull it…three times.
[paranoia] – Honestly, my intentions weren’t to make you any more paranoid…I was merely providing food (with nutritional value) for thought.

Not Another Four Letter Acronym Person-NAFLAP. I was just getting a handle on the TLAs. Three Letter Acronym in future.

[General-Boat Driver] – Does it really matter who’s President?

We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex - Dwight D. Eisenhower.
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 11, 2009
I wonder how many of the Colonial Freemasons were Loyalists?
2 sides- 1 coin. The member nation states US and GBR have never left the Sphere.
It was chance that saved Hitler when the assassin's bomb went off.
The Purpose that that incident and so many others served leads me to think -no.
It was mostly chance the Benedict Arnold was at Saratoga to save the day for the American Revolution.
I'll look into it.
Chance happens.
In this world of Planning, Scheming human beings, as little as possible will be left to chance. Do you really think the economic future of the entire world would be left in the hands of one newly-elected transient head of the US to solve from scratch? Do you think that an inevitable collapse such as this wouldnt be designed to limit its effect and contain the ingredients for its own recovery? As far as the Topic goes I only use this as an example of the engineered Providence of Man as opposed to that of the god he so long conveniently blamed it on
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 11, 2009
In reading up on Bay of Pigs it looks to me like an operation designed to fail, as it must have to anyone who knew the facts beforehand. Did jfk know? Probably not and was probably generally pissed whether BoP was supposed to succeed or not, as he had to take the blame; not only for the act but for the half-assed efforts to conceal it. It made the US look like vulnerable amateurs. All this enabled the following:
1. It strengthened Castros hand.
2. It allowed cuba to ruthlessly purge dissidents and insurgents.
3. It gave castro the excuse to accept nukes
4. It disposed of troublesome exiles in the US.
5. It emboldened parties like the viet cong and the NVA who could now see the US as defeatable.
6. It defined the enemy in the public eye on both sides of the Iron Curtain. The US was capable of invading and the USSR was an immediate threat.
7. Thus it allowed us to escalate in SE Asia, an area close to collapse from overpop, the root cause of all conflict. Brilliant all around.
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 11, 2009
Topic goes I only use this as an example of the engineered Providence of Man as opposed to that of the god he so long conveniently blamed it on
HaHa! Wrong thread- Was Oswald religious? Only if he needed to be as part of his characters Persona. I once heard Skull and Bones being described as only a 'debating society'. Well of course- initiates to a lifelong Calling such as this would have to demonstrate a superior ability to assume either side of an issue- without flaw or suspicion of duplicity. Debating is an excellent way of both discerning and refining this ability.
@muchtobedesired
-If you think BoP was about profit from pre-castro crime, SE Asia was a MUCH more lucrative market. Im sure youve heard of the US govt business with drugs etc. from the region. But IMO it was about sociopolitics- not organized crime.
Muchtobedesired
not rated yet Nov 11, 2009
Some recommended good reading...

JFK was following two strategies for dealing with Fidel Castro. Both were highly secret and were known to only a small number of people.
http://educationf...pic=5434

The Mafia, CIA and George Bush-By Pete Brewton

Just before Kennedy was assassinated on 22 November 1963, Dallas, Texas nightclub owner Jack Ruby made contact with Marcello, and Tampa, Florida boss Santo Trafficante

Herman Beebe had served nine months in federal prison for bank fraud and had impeccable credentials as a financier for New Orleans-based organized crime figures, including Vincent and Carlos Marcello. Herman Beebe was involved in a scheme in the early 1970s to smuggle guns and explosives to anti-Castro Cubans operating in Mexico.
http://www.youtub...3p57TqPA

The road to Dallas: the assassination of John F. Kennedy- By David E. Kaiser

Conspiracy in Camelot: the complete history of the assassination of JFK- By Jerome A. Kroth
Muchtobedesired
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
The entire idea of removing Fidel, had to do with pre-profit. Much of the wealthy/organized crime people, left Cuba during, and after the revolution...they had to...they wanted back in...to the high life...and the "chicks for free."

Does it really matter if a small piece of land surrounded with water, was communist, and had a couple nukes...Russia had hundreds pointed at us...good bye!

[SE Asia was a lucrative market] - Don't you remember the C130s full of COKE flying in from Latin/South America, to Mena, Arkansas...Clinton's back yard...he couldn't seem to remember, although he threw a meager 25K to his attorney general to investigate it, even though he had asked for much more.

[But IMO it was about sociopolitics- not organized crime]

Now there's a combination worth taking a crack at: Politics and Organized Crime...hmmmm

Thought you might find this information a useful compliment to the other bits...

Bay of Pigs.
http://www.sparta...pigs.htm
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 11, 2009
Thanks-
The entire idea of removing Fidel, had to do with pre-profit.
Or greed and ambition were the Vehicles to get far more important Work done. 'Organized crime' is inevitable. Much better if it is created by the Powers that Be to serve their own purposes. After all, what good is money if the world is collapsing around you? Where would have inflation taken us if Iran/Iraq and the rest of the middle east had restored the caliphate after the shah was ousted and shut off the oil? But they didnt. Instead an 11 war was engineered which did nothing but kill millions and impoverish the rest. Shia against Shia. This is Sociopolitics- applied politics aimed at changing the social structure for the better. Or at least more beneficial.

And GHW Bush was doing drug deals out of the Oval Office too- :-0
-If the drug trade is Inevitable, you ought to be the one to corner the market, yes?
otto1923
not rated yet Nov 11, 2009
JFK was following two strategies for dealing with Fidel Castro.
This just bolsters my opinion that he was assassinated because he was using what powers he had to end cuban communism (as was Che). The CIA was playing him and his advisors along no doubt as was the military, and Castro, who all knew communist martial law was the best thing for that fecund catholic society.
caleb1956
not rated yet Nov 12, 2009
It's astounding to me that a number of elements are conveniently omitted from Farid's so-called research. One, it's well nigh impossible to end up with the same composite background- the stairs, trees etc. in the same fixed positions. Look at any sequence of three photos taken by hand over time interval delta t and you will see perceptible changes in the background, slight displacements from what had originally been photographed. Meanwhile, in the Oswald photos, all the backset elements remain fixed in position.

Farid doesn't even attempt to explain this, but it CAN be explained by reference to superimposing or pasting in a previous photo - to a *cutout* space with the contour of a man holding a rifle. This "cutout" photo actually exists as the so-called "Oswald Ghost" photo and is clearly shown on page 170 of Robert Groden's 'The Killing of a President'.

In addition, pixel density formulations aren't trustworthy since the b&w emulsions back then had different optical opacity.